IOWA CITY, Iowa  A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an irresistible attraction, even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.

But Nelsons attorney said Iowas all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.

Certainly goes a long way toward explaining why I lost so many jobs as a wild and handsome youth; the women just couldn’t resist me - one of the reasons I was too distracted to do my job and took so many unauthorized days off.

Oddly, the kooks on the Iowa Supreme Court seem to recognize that employer-employee relationship is mutual and un-coerced. Just as one may quit for any reason, one may be let go for any reason. The employee can collect unemployment, as there is no allegation the employee acted improperly.

Alternatively, Your Honor, I hired this woman based on my sexual attraction to her, not her skills. It was my intent to hit her like the hammer of an angry God at every opportunity. But she rejected my advances. Since I can’t falt her work performance, well, I need help here. My wife wants hewr gone so what can I do?

So what about the firing “for any reason” mantra so often expressed around here?

As a “lower-case” libertarian, I support firing for any reason. And yes, there are times when it might be completely unfair. But it’s not the govt’s job to make fair; the community, media, and market should handle that.

Fire away, statists.

19
posted on 12/22/2012 11:24:01 AM PST
by Gene Eric
(Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)

frankly, I personally believe that by the foundational prinicipals in the Constitution “discrimination” on any grounds is allowed all of us in our private consensual affairs, including employment; it is only government and government institutions that cannot “discriminate” because the government is everyone’s government

we are entitled to our personal values and value systems in our private lives, but in government we are required to leave our personal prejudices at the door

leaving our prejudices at the door, when it comes to the government, means we cannot write our own prejudices into the law, and it also means the law cannot force us into personal associations our own values are not in agreement with

There is a difference between firing and laying off. One carries a connotation of poor performance or wrongdoing. If the pretext for firing rises to the level of slander and is demonstrably inaccurate, there should be not just a penalty for it but restrictions. I say that as a former business owner who has hired, fired and laid people off in the past.

Employment at will does not mean you're free to be a lying @hole. It's their livelihood, you're throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.

>> Employment at will does not mean you’re free to be a lying @hole. It’s their livelihood, you’re throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.

There are legitimate remedies for slander not dependent on employment.

>> you’re free
>> you’re throwing
>> for your good

You mean “the employer”.

You seem to have a paternal view on this matter which of course is your option. Doesn’t mean, however, your thoughtful views should be law.

31
posted on 12/22/2012 12:17:28 PM PST
by Gene Eric
(Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)

If the pretext for firing rises to the level of slander and is demonstrably inaccurate, there should be not just a penalty for it but restrictions.

The penalty is the restriction. And are you suggesting there should be some special class of slander torts where you get extra goodies if the slander applies to your employment?

I know, I know - in our day and age the 'There Oughta be a Law' impulse is just too hard control. And it really is too much to expect for anyone, including conservatives, to resist its allure of immediate gratification.

A conservative finding paternalism to be a negative is something of a recent phenomenon, no doubt stemming from the rise of feminism.

You as employer should have at least some level of regard and care for those in your employ. Not having it has led to unions on the one hand or hellish company towns from which you’d be hard pressed to escape to the other extreme.

Now we have more or less sociopathic management without the least bit of concern one way or the other. Unions or even company stores and scrip will start looking better by comparison with where we are headed.

Understand the political reality that is being created by such blatant @holes. Maybe you’re in a union state and don’t see it, or maybe you’re in one of the few pockets that remain economically healthy. I don’t know, but you seem to be wearing blinders of a sort.

Glad to see someone understands the difference between illegal and unfair, not nice, immoral, etc..

So long someone is fired for a reason that is not illegal then it is not illegal to fire that person. I have this argument all the time with people. I once fired a guy because his hair was blue, seriously. He got mad, everyone under 30 got mad, and they all said I should be sued for discrimination. It was good for a laugh when I asked to see the law that made firing blue headed workers illegal.

Dig deeper...he was sexually harassing her, with comments like “the bulge in my pants means your clothes are too revealing”, and her “...not having sex is like keeping a Lamborghini in the garage”. She should have sued for sexual harassment and she’d own his practice instead of being unemployed.

I don’t agree with the underlying premise that firing without “just cause” is lawfully immoral. Furthermore, not sure why you insist on making this personal by suggesting I practice what you deem to be immoral.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but there’s this bull-headed view among certain Conservatives that says: “Unless the force of law is backing morality than there’s no morality.” That’s statism, and I’d rather take the smaller lumps that come with libertarianism.

41
posted on 12/22/2012 2:01:04 PM PST
by Gene Eric
(Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)

I think people should be fired for any reason even stupid reasons, but it’s pretty stupid to get rid of a perfectly good employee when there are so many bad employees that cause all sorts of trouble. The next employee he gets will probably file a bogus lawsuit against him and cause him all sorts of headaches.

“The world didnt end yesterday, it turned upside down.....”
You are RIGHT ! ! !
This is the same supreme court in Iowa that approved “same-sex-marriage” . . .
So be careful of which gender that might be “irresistible” . . .
Draw your own conclusions..........

I think the media attention from this will cost him other employees, as well as dental clients.

I have no problem with firing for any reason, so long as the employer does not then cry “foul” when more women are no longer eager to work for him when they research his name and background or when more women are no longer willing to have him for a dentist because of his foolish unwillingness to control his sexual urges in the workplace.

Choices have consequences; this particular dentist will experience a backlash.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.